UNHRC voting : Equally in the interests of India

The headline of the banner news on the first page of a ‘national’ daily’s Chennai edition on March 23 was, “Chennai forces India to split from Asia, censures Lanka” and the news go on like this: “Sri Lanka became the lastest victim of the UPA government's coalition compulsions, as India voted against one of its closest neighbors at the UN Human Rights Council today on alleged human rights violations in a development that may have larger implications.

India's unprecedented move to target a close ally could result in India losing strategic space to China, which voted against the resolution censuring Sri Lanka, along with others in the neighborhood, like Bangladesh and Maldives. All Asian states, except India, stood by Sri Lanka. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia voted with their strategic ally, US.

India went against its own tradition of not voting on country-specific resolutions in the UN, because of the huge pressure put on the Manmohan Singh government by the Tamil parties, with ally DMK even threatening to pull out of the government.”

If the very presentation of news ‘objectively’ by a self-proclaimed national daily is this much perverse, least need be said about the opinions that these newspapers emanate through their editorials and columns and the 24x7 English news channels, discuss through their anchors. For instance, a news Analysis column by Smita Gupta on March 24 in the Chennai-based national daily ‘The Hindu’ (Their editorial on the previous day, some what balanced) under the headline, “After Trinamool, now the DMK impacts foreign policy”, goes on telling:

“Pressure exerted by the United Progressive Alliance government's southern comrade, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, forced India to vote in favour of the U.S.-sponsored censure motion against Sri Lanka on Thursday in the 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, urging that country to probe rights abuses in the war against the Tamil Tigers.

But this is not the first time a UPA ally has influenced India's foreign policy. Last September, the Trinamool Congress, which routinely railroads economic decisions the UPA government would like to take — from permitting FDI in retail to increasing rail passenger fares — also cast a long shadow over India's relations with its eastern neighbour, Bangladesh, when the party torpedoed the Teesta River Waters Agreement.

At the time, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Bannerjee, apprehensive that the treaty would adversely affect irrigation and power projects in the northern part of her State, even refused to accompany Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Dhaka. This time the DMK, by threatening to pull out its Ministers from the government at the Centre if India did not back the U.S.-sponsored resolution, exerted a similar influence on the UPA.

Since then, the Indian government may have underscored the fact that it did so only to enable Sri Lankan Tamils to get justice and it did not wish to infringe Colombo's sovereignty. But it is more than apparent that it allowed domestic political compulsions to prevail over the country's strategic interests. The fact is the government did what it did under pressure from the two Tamil parties, the DMK and the ADMK.”

It is yet another thing that these dailies could not have published the news last December under the headline ‘Kolkatta forces India...” and a news analysis “Trinamool impacts foreign policy” and risk the safety and security of their offices in West Bengal capital!

The very same dailies, if they turn back their issues of the years 1970-71 and the much avowed nationalist columnists recall their writings of that period of unrest followed by civil war led by Mukti Vahini in the then East Pakistan and the liberation of Bangladesh by the Indian armed forces, they would find they did not cry down Indian State ‘casting a long shadow over India’s relations with Pakistan’ or said ‘Indira Gandhi forces India to split from Asia, invades Pakistan’! On teh other hand, they had whole-heartedly welcomed and defended Indian government’s stand against condemnation by USA-led West and China and reservations of some Arab states.

If now, on the Indian voting against Sri Lanka in the UNHR, they observe with the same perspective of 1971, they must welcome it, rather they should have dutifully advocated the line even earlier to the Centre. Why?

There is a specific context to India shedding its traditional inhibition of not supporting country-specific resolutions at the UN Human Rights Council, and going with the American sponsored move in Geneva on March 22 to censure Sri Lanka over its violation of the human rights of its Tamil minorities. This derives from a historical change in circumstances. The Sri Lankans can fail to see this at the expense of their own cohesion.

It is also wrong and unhistorical to say that traditionally India’s foreign policy was dictated by the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. In the post-Independence years, when India was economically and diplomatically much weaker and in the nascent state in international comity of nations, the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took bold and lead stand on many issues during the cold-war era like winning back the Palestine state under Israel occupation, against apartheid in South Africa, enunciating the principle of Panchasheel and building Non Aligned Movement, most of them much to the chagrin of Super powers and Western nations and principally guided by humanitarian and liberation considerations.

Sri Lanka used all the help it could get from Western countries during its war with the LTTE. The banning of the outfit was particularly helpful. But it now wants the same countries to keep out as the question of war crimes has arisen. It has been playing the ‘China card’ ever since it won the war, despite the support it got from India. At the time of civil war, the Lankan Tamils found refuge in India, not China. So it is we Indians, who came for their rights to live with dignity and equality in the island nation.

Until the end of the civil war, India remained solicitous of Colombo’s concern on the preservation of its unity and integrity as a nation in the face of ‘violent efforts at breaking it up’. It paid no heed then to domestic voices that sought to fetter the Sri Lankan armed forces in its fight against Tamil Tigers.

Once that objective was attained three years ago, New Delhi returned to the fundamental question in Sri Lanka of attending to the long-festering grievances of the minority community. It repeatedly urged Colombo through quiet bilateral diplomacy to come good on earlier promises to visit the question of the basic human rights of Tamil people in the North and East of the island and give these provinces the needed constitutional powers, particularly in the area of authority over land and the police. The commission of inquiry instituted by President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime – the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) – after the LTTE’s destruction also notes in its observations and recommendations that the ‘root cause’ of the conflict was the grievance of Tamils. In spite of this Colombo has remained evasive on basic Tamil issues.

For India, it is this that tipped the scales in favour of voting the way it did at UNHRC. Had Colombo taken credible measures to bring about the long overdue reconciliation to ensure that the Tamils lived with dignity and equality, New Delhi might not have reasons to have backed the resolution. Permanent peace, stability and development in Sri Lanka are inextricably linked to the meaningful measures its government takes within a reasonable timeframe. For the first time in decades, New Delhi is in concord with popular sentiments in Tamil Nadu but it would be wrong to look at its Geneva vote as merely the product of political pressure. Overtime, the false assurances on devolution and implementation of ‘the 13^th amendment and beyond’ it received from Colombo have frustrated South Block and forced it to reconsider its diplomatic option.

Now, there is an urgent need for India to emerge from the rather prolonged phase of quiet and virtually ineffective diplomacy to purposefully ensure that the rights and dignity of Tamil population in Sri Lanka are restored and resettled in their areas of living, equally, if not more, in the interests of security of India also.

Two issues remain. First, Sri Lankan security forces did commit widespread atrocities on the Tamil population during the final phases of the war. Second, three years since the end of war, Colombo has failed to address issues of resettlement, rehabilitation of the displaced Tamils, has progressed nowhere with regard to devolution of power and, has only done lip service to address human rights violations by its forces.

The Mahinda Rajapaksa government has gone about defending its actions at home and abroad. It says that 99 per cent of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) have been resettled. It points at a massive development drive in the north and east of the country to provide infrastructure facilities to the Tamil population. It also says that recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) “that can be implemented instantly” have already been implemented and “the rest will be implemented systematically”. Such claims, however, have few takers outside Sri Lanka.

New Delhi thought that the tactic of shaming Sri Lanka at the UN might produce a counter-effect: hardening Colombo’s stand. It would push the country further into the lap of the Chinese — a constant fear that has influenced Indian foreign policy towards Sri Lanka in recent years. India would, thus, hold on to its policy that it does not support any country-specific resolution at UNHRC. Such a position would fend off potential attempts to internationalise similar human rights debates in India’s own conflict theatres.

Interestingly, Indian External Affairs Minister S M Krishna maintains that the “welfare and well-being of the Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka”, their “resettlement and rehabilitation have been of the highest and most immediate priority for the government”. Any honest assessment, however, would reveal that India’s achievements have remained negligible. 

India keeps insisting on devolution of power through the implementation of the 13th amendment, forgetting the fact that the 18th amendment has already increased the executive powers for the President and ensures the consolidation of his government in Parliament with Sinhala nationalist vote. There is little dependency on minority votes to stay in power, which further means that Colombo has very little reason to be compliant to India’s suggestions.

In the Parliament on February 14, Krishna spoke of the Indian project to build 50,000 houses for the Tamil IDPs in Sri Lanka. During his January 2012 visit, he handed over the first lot of few hundred houses and bicycles to some of the IDPs. What Krishna did not mention is that these projects in no way reverse the systematic attempts by Colombo to marginalise the Tamil minorities for all times to come. 

Recent reports indicate that the reconstruction projects in the Tamil-inhabited areas have seen a surge in military activities. The armed forces have occupied both public and private land and are gradually establishing themselves as a major economic force by involving themselves in commercial and agricultural activities. Northern and eastern Sri Lanka, as a result, is being systematically converted into some sort of a green zone, all in the name of checkmating any future revival of Tamil extremism. An attempt to impose the culture of the majority on the entire geographic expanse of the country is also underway. The gains made by Colombo are irreversible and the project of marginalisation of the Tamils is complete, almost.

Notwithstanding the token positive developments, which include relaxation of some emergency regulations, Tamil NGOs continue to face harassment. The “white van phenomenon” — mysterious men in white vans accounting for abduction and subsequent disappearance of suspected anti-establishment persons — continues to be a reality. Colombo is in no mood to change and that is more than evident.

Post-Geneva, India needs to revisit its utterances on and its action in Sri Lanka. Not just a terrorist free Sri Lanka, but also a contented and secure Tamil population within it, is in India’s national interest.

India’s national interest and its territorial security requires inhabitation of Tamils with lingual and cultural links with India, in the northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka, close to southern territory of India, than Sinhalese, who are by and large hostile towards India. Moreover during any unrest and threat to their security and safety of life, there is an influx of refugees from Lanka into India, just as the influx of refugees from the then East Pakistan in 1970-71 which thrust a war on India.

Having voted for the resolution, the onus is now on India to remain engaged with the Lankan authorities, as its interests lie in promoting reconciliation and supporting the quest of Tamils for justice, equality and dignity and demographic distribution of people in Sri Lanka. On a visit to Tamil Nadu, Tamil National Alliance (TNA) of Sri Lankan Parliament M.A.Suthanthiram on March 25 has echoed this concern saying, “the most serious issue of focus now was the militarisation of the North and East provinces in the island nation. Violence against women was of particular worry. There had been widespread incidents of land grabbing.

The militarisation had also helped people from other parts of the country to settle down in the Tamil provinces with the protection of the security forces. Civil administration has been destabilised as the military itself was now taking care of the administration in the Tamil-dominated areas, he said. “Militarisation has had a debilitating effect on the lives of the people due to its all pervasiveness,” Sumanthiran observed.

The white van abductions were a supplementary to the militarisation that had taken place. “In the first few months of the year, there were 32 recorded incidents of abductions. Ten bodies have been found. This trend is very very unhealthy. In one case, the persons who indulged in the crime were arrested. But they displayed their army identity cards and they were allowed to go. However, the police officer who arrested them was transferred immediately,” said the TNA member. Responding to accusations from civil liberty groups that the LLRC was itself toothless, he said, “On accountability it has failed, but on many other matters it has very constructive recommendations.

The (UNHRC) resolution, on the other hand, talks about accountability separately. So what the LLRC fails in, the resolution addresses separately,” he said. On the amendments brought in by India to the resolution, he said they were “redundant and superfluous” as the rules of engagement anyway required the country to accept technical assistance. “Also, if Sri Lanka had accepted the resolution in the first place, it would have been a different issue. Now that they haven’t, the amendments make very little difference,” he observed.

The DMK has the tradition of wholeheartedly supporting the initiatives of the Centre on foreign policy, be it in support of the Palestine State issue, or against apartheid, or Non-Aligned Movement etc., by Jawaharlal Nehru and its successors. Kalaignar extended full moral and material support to Indira Gandhi in the liberation of Bangladesh. While urging the Centre now to support the resolution against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC, Kalaignar was concerned with not only justice for Lankan Tamils but also in the interests of national security.